Why no one plays sci-fi RPGs

[Green Knight]

Just a theory which I just came up with on a fly, but could it be that the reason you don't see so many people playing Sci-Fi RPG's is because most well-known sci-fi worlds are worlds in which most of the universe is civilized? For instance, Star Trek doesn't really lend itself to "adventuring". And if it does, you can't really see that world in the show. Same for B5, since it's always Earthforce or Rangers who're doing the important stuff. Fantasy worlds, are by their nature, more savage with less all-encompassing national power, which leaves more room for the wandering adventuring party. Just a thought, anyway.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Fantasy worlds, are by their nature, more savage with less all-encompassing national power, which leaves more room for the wandering adventuring party. Just a thought, anyway.

I think that was what I was trying to intimate in my above post, ever so clumsily.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

I love Science Fantasy settings like Star Wars.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

You got anything to back that up? .

To be honest, not really. Just my own experience and my perception of what's popular at my FLGS. To be honest, I love d20 Modern and would love to play a near-future sci-fi game but I haven't been able to find anyone to play. But I've found 20+ people in my local area who all want to play D&D. And good luck finding *any* Traveller or Shadowrun or even Star Trek at my FLGS--though there is lots of Star Wars stuff.

Anyway, it's always been my perception that virtually every RPG on the market is a small niche except for D&D and White Wolf's WoD.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Oh, and I can tell you why *I* don't play Sci-Fi RPGs: Space Travel.

There are sci-fi games that do not require space travel.

If you play one that does, the PCs don't have to be the ones flying the ship.

 

[Shadowdancer]

To be honest, I love d20 Modern and would love to play a near-future sci-fi game but I haven't been able to find anyone to play. But I've found 20+ people in my local area who all want to play D&D. And good luck finding *any* Traveller or Shadowrun or even Star Trek at my FLGS--though there is lots of Star Wars stuff.

d20 Modern is science fantasy, not science fiction.

 

[d4]

the two longest-running campaigns i've been involved with (year and half to two years) were both science fiction games. i would have to question the theory that sci fi campaigns aren't sustainable -- we did quite well.

secondly, you don't necessarily need to know a lot of real-world science to GM a sci fi campaign. just like most fantasy GMs don't really know a lot about real-world myths and legends. those two long-running sci fi campaigns i played in were GMed by an English major and a high school kid who later went on to Art school.

i also don't think that science fiction games get "dated" and "obsolete" as quickly as you think. like others have mentioned, there's lots of people still playing Traveller to this day. also, the type of super shiny hardcore hard SF that gets dated within a year or two is a vanishingly small fraction of the sci fi genre.

nothing from either of the two campaigns i mentioned before would be considered obsolete or dated given today's knowledge of science. one was run from 1998 to 2000 and the other some time in the mid- to late-80s!

 

[d4]

d20 Modern is science fantasy, not science fiction.

says who? d20 Modern can be played in countless different ways. just because there's a chapter on magic in the book doesn't mean that magic is present in every d20 Modern setting.

d20 Modern works fine for straight sci fi, and will be even better for it once d20 Future comes out this summer.

 

[s/LaSH]

Heck, the first thing I thought when I saw d20 Modern was 'Let's do a Bruce Willis movie!'. And you don't see too many sorcerers in those.

Anyway, I don't think I have a problem with 'invalid science'. I've had a great deal of fun writing stories featuring completely bad science - there are men on Mars, they're red and have big canals, and then they fight dinosaurs who came from Earth's core on a pyramid spaceship. For example. Not a word about air in there, because it doesn't matter.

This, of course, is playing around with a genre, not science. But does science fiction have to be about science?

Ooh, I'm profounding myself. Better wrap this up quick.

 

[d4]

Anyway, I don't think I have a problem with 'invalid science'. I've had a great deal of fun writing stories featuring completely bad science - there are men on Mars, they're red and have big canals, and then they fight dinosaurs who came from Earth's core on a pyramid spaceship. For example. Not a word about air in there, because it doesn't matter.

This, of course, is playing around with a genre, not science. But does science fiction have to be about science?

that's a great point. in fact, some of my favorite "science fiction" was written by Verne, Wells, and Doyle, and is downright laughable by today's scientific standards. they're still great reads, though.

and someone else mentioned Dune, which i'm reading right now. there's nothing scientifically obsolete in those books, mainly because Herbert doesn't really ever concern himself with the technology of the setting. it's in the background and he doesn't bother describing it, so it can't ever get dated. he never mentions what kind of engines Guild heighliners have, or what physics allow a personal shield to work, or whatever. it can still be science fiction without the technology fetish.